"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Just War Series - Right Intention 


Introduction to Just War Theory
I. Recourse to War - jus ad bellum
  1. Just Cause
  2. Competent Authority
  3. Comparative Justice
  4. Right Intention
  5. Last Resort
  6. Probability of Success
  7. Proportionality
II. Conduct in War - jus in bello
  1. Discrimination
  2. Proportionality
Right Intention means that not only must we have sufficient cause to enter into war, but we must have the intention of seeking a just and lasting peace.

Note: As a basis for this series I am using as my primary source Joseph Martino's 1988 book A Fighting Chance. See more about this in the Introduction to Just War post.

There are three elements of right intention;
  1. Limiting oneself to pursuit of the just cause
  2. Keeping in mind that the ultimate objective of the war is a just and lasting peace
  3. Maintaining charity and love towards the enemy
Let's examine each of these one at a time.

The first element means that you cannot add objectives or justifications as the war progresses. The classic example is the Korean War. Our original objective was simply to repel the North Korean army, which had invaded our ally in the south. After the successful landings at Inchon, and the collapse of the North Korean army, we expanded our objectives to include the reunification of the entire peninsula. By doing so we violated this rule of Just War Theory.

In regard to the second element, that of achieving a just and lasting peace, there are several factors that come into play.

First, we must not take actions that cause unnecessary suffering or damage. This will be explored further when I take up Conduct In War.

Second, surrender terms must not be so harsh so as to unnecessarily prolong the war. This is generally taken to mean that unconditional surrender violates this criterion of Just War Theory. World War II is our first example. By demanding unconditional surrender, the allies gave the enemy no reason to do anything other than fight to the death. The issue also comes up with regard to "tinpot" dictators who are faced with an insurgency or coup. They are cornered with cadre of loyal defenders. The rebels have a choice; end the standoff by letting the dictator leave the country, or stage an all-out attack. The dictator escapes justice with the former, but lives are saved. Justice is served in the latter, but questions arise as to whether it was worth the cost. Generally speaking this criterion of Just War Theory asks us to let the dictator go in order to save lives. Note: This is a general rule and as circumstances will vary from case o case, letting the dictator go may be unjust in some circumstances.

Maintaining charity and love towards our enemy may seem strange, but it is perhaps the most important requirement of all. Never must we allow ourselves to resort to racial epithets, or describe our enemy as "subhuman." We must maintain our standards regardless of the savagery of our foes. To be sure, on the actual battlefield passions will be excited to the point where we must excuse our soldiers for engaging in talk or some actions that are not acceptable in polite society. Those of us safe in our homes have no such excuse.

Application to Current Events

It is clear to me that the United States has met the requirements of Right Intention in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the case of each country we have expended great amounts of blood and treasure in order to install democratic governments that reflect the will of their people. Throughout most or many of our interventions in Central and South America, for example, we were happy with a strongman who was friendly towards us. This also became our de facto policy in South Vietnam. And we tolerated "authoritarian" regimes in the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan throughout the Cold War. Only when the Soviet Union collapsed did we require that the latter two reform (The Philippines having done so themselves in 1986).

We could easily have installed strongmen in Afghanistan and Iraq, declare victory (a la Nixon) and leave. That we have not and will not do so is a tribute to our national character. No longer will the Cold War excuses of necessity do.

Further, we have gone out of our way to avoid unnecessary damage and casualties. This has been amply documented elsewhere. Raving leftists who say otherwise display their own ignorance.

Lastly, this has been perhaps the most politically correct war in history - from our perspective. We yhave gone out of our way toLastly, this has been perhaps the most politically correct war in history – from our perspective. There were a few intemperate words spoken in the early days of the War on Terror, but in general we have gone out of our way to avoid anything that may be perceived as an insult, to the point where the word “crusade” has just about been banned.

In conclusion, we have met the Right Intention test of Just War Theory.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter / 2/02/2005 07:00:00 PM
|
Comments:
Hello, I am a korean visitor, good to see you.
I am sure that your blog page looks great to me which mean looking crowded so, I would like to let everybodies know korea information official site korea.net same as Dynamic korea - contains all about korea news and informations, please let me introducel this cool site. Dynamic korea offer korea travel, culture, food, arts and government info exactly what you want to knowkorean lyric. You better check it out some time.
# posted by Blogger Interad : 2:37 PM
 
Hi The Redhunter

This blog is amazing,esp. the just war series-right intention. It really lighten up my knowledge. Thanks
From Coventry (UK)
# posted by Blogger sailojohn : 2:29 PM
 
Post a Comment
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Delete Reply Forward Spam